Page 3 of 3

Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 2:55 pm
by VinceBlood
I'm an audiophile, I often listen music alone without doing something.

I use only monitor speaker than is not a very good idea (not all adapted for pleasure listening) but I don't have other thing.
I hope buy someday a good HIFI equipment.

Posted: Sun Jul 30, 2006 4:24 pm
by Livgivare
I don't nessesary think that people who just listen and can't play a tone on a synth are naive. I think that people that can't play synths can understand the amount of job made into the track and that weather or not it is good or bad. And I also think that if you are too much into the synths you become too obsessed with how you yourself can make the music and that it at times can destroy the pure joy in music listening. Too much knowlegde can actually kill the fun at times.

Sure you need to know a sertain amount of knowledge to discouss the track technically with other that are skilled. But I also think that people like me who can't play the music still can have some input on the music. We are not as unimportant as we may seem. I think that listening to sound or the whole track is a thing even people who can't play can do. The only thing we are better at is just having other images attached to the sound then those who are just seeing keyboards in front of them.

I am not sure anyone understands this fully but I do see the tendencies around this kind of discousion that people that can't play synths shall stay out of the debate which is really sad imo.

Well I have said enough at this point about this matter of fact so I will now relax and look at the replies!

Love Leelene

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:22 pm
by BnM
Music in its purest form resides within the depths of an artist in a form that is formless
with sounds that are soundless.
It is, in a way, a movement, a dance, a point, within the soul.

But when this movement is translated
and then played on instruments
some or a lot of its purity is lost
some or a lot of its true content and meaning is lost.

John Coltrane for example was continually trying to express his inner most being through his playing
... in albums such as Love Supreme and Live at the Village Vanguard.
His search was endless because it is infact impossible to translate this internal purity into external format.

The same with the paintings of Van Gogh also.

Thus music that we hear, and the sounds involved are infact an approximation of what is within the artist
and has degraded and lost some meaning in its translation.

Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:22 pm
by Equinoxe
bangers n mash wrote:Music in its purest form resides within the depths of an artist in a form that is formless
with sounds that are soundless.
It is, in a way, a movement, a dance, a point, within the soul.

But when this movement is translated
and then played on instruments
some or a lot of its purity is lost
some or a lot of its true content and meaning is lost.

John Coltrane for example was continually trying to express his inner most being through his playing
... in albums such as Love Supreme and Live at the Village Vanguard.
His search was endless because it is infact impossible to translate this internal purity into external format.

The same with the paintings of Van Gogh also.

Thus music that we hear, and the sounds involved are infact an approximation of what is within the artist
and has degraded and lost some meaning in its translation.

There is some truth in that but most people who write,dont sit down and say "Ok i'm gonna write this or that song" alot of it is subconcious and just gut feeling at the time of the creation other times it can be a written idea helping the mind to expand upon it,in which case yes it can be translated from an idea and partly distort the real emotion,an idea can be emotive in raw form,but can also have massive impact given by the soundchoice also,would Oxygene sound as romantic without the Sweeping Eminent phased strings!!!Probably not

but from my experience of songwriting (and pretty much other songwriters i Know),the artist for a few moments felt moved or inspired to create something not able to grasp or put into context at the time,when you play something and feel submerged in it enough to move you,there is no way to ever grab that moment again,no matter how much you try to replicate it,as a listener you can be touched upon by the emotion of the song,but only the composer at the time of its creation can fully feel the emotion behind the song even though they probably dont actually realise it at the time.

I do think that sometimes a great part of something is lost along the way in trying to transcribe that Idea,but alot of the time that could be just down to sheer boredom of repetitive listening to it again and again,hence why so many composers go on to write more and more stuff ,never fully happy with what they have captured.

Songs can have powerful messages and people are affected emotionally in many ways,but unless your a songwriter yourself,you can never feel the full pleasure of creating something out of nothing.when you've created something that makes you sit back and ask,"where did that idea come from" thats when its unique,only a magical moment of subconciousness
Most songwriters will say that the best songs they create are the ones that were not born out of forcible conditions,but more something that took place easily and innocently and fell into shape felt only at the time of creation.once you start to concentrate on it,it becomes lost in translation.

Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:55 pm
by BnM
Yeah
I was writing about translating inspiration into music.
Not sitting down and thinking about writing music or thinking about playing it.

(ps I read ur band mate Shane Lynch was on Celebrity Love Island). :wink: